What's Good About the ACA (Obamacare)?

[Captain Hindsight]

What "kid" is 26? Seriously.

As a "kid" who just turned 24 I am very thankful for that. Gone are the days when a Bachelors degree means anything other than an unpaid internship. If i wasnt on my parents insurance, I'm not going to a doctor ever much less eating.

 

I work 55 hours a week for whopping 160 week before taxes. When I go to grad school, I'm going to need that insurance too. I cant afford something like healthcare right now, I can barely afford to get to work

[IDBillzFan]

As a "kid" who just turned 24 I am very thankful for that. Gone are the days when a Bachelors degree means anything other than an unpaid internship. If i wasnt on my parents insurance, I'm not going to a doctor ever much less eating.

 

I work 55 hours a week for whopping 160 week before taxes. When I go to grad school, I'm going to need that insurance too. I cant afford something like healthcare right now, I can barely afford to get to work

I understand what you're saying, but you make it sound like you have no other option for health insurance. If your parents are paying for coverage on their plan, they could just as easily give you money for you to get your own coverage. It's not like before ACA you couldn't get health insurance.

Edited July 19, 2012 by LABillzFan

[Captain Hindsight]

I don't disagree that we could probably save about 12% administrative costs going to public payer. My point is, in terms of the system we have...the insurance companies NEED about 20% of that dollar. It's not pure waste in the environment we have so they shouldn't be demonized over it. The fact of the matter the common wisdom that the private sector is more efficient that the public sector just doesn't match up when it comes to healthcare...I don't deny that...but it's not b/c they're evil or making a killing off us...it's just the facts of life. To say "why have private insurers who get 20% when Britan and Canada have admin costs closer to 6-8%?" is fair...to say "our private insurers don't need 20% they're dirty cheats who steal" is not fair.

 

As for gov't run healthcare system I don't doubt they could it more it more cheaply. It's a fact. But it's questionable if the service would be the same per dollar...for many non-emergency procedures the wait time could be months and even then they would cover everyone...but not everything...and yet taxes would still be high to pay for it. So what's the difference between the taxes you pay there and the premium you pay here as compared to a procedure not covered there but covered on your plan here? The answer to that question will vary depending on your income and the procedures you end up needing. But the idea is the same...both systems have their pros and cons...which is better for any given individual depends on that individual and their circumstances. I would agree though that ultimately I think the total socialization of that market is probably better for more more people than less. But that's neither here nor there b/c we will NEVER have that in America.

 

As I said earlier I would say the best system for the US would ultimately be public payer, private provider...or "medicare for all" as you call it. But for now, given the circumstances...the ACA will have to do.

This an argument i dont understand. Maybe you can help me get this. My father tore his rotator cuff 2 months ago and is having surgery next week. This is before the obamacare kicks in. How is that any different?

 

The other argument I hear is that you dont get to pick your doctor. Well that doesnt make sense, you can find out if this place has better doctors than that place and choose to go there right? Is this law going to make Doctors any less competent? Are they not going to study in med school?

 

I understand what you're saying, but you make it sound like you have no other option for health insurance. If your parents are paying for coverage on their plan, they could just as easily give you money for you to get your own coverage. It's not like before ACA you couldn't get health insurance.

Is every person that lucky though? My parents absolutely will not let me starve or not have emergency surgery or anything like that, but many people dont have that luxury. Believe me I'm the lucky one out of my friends to have come from the family I did

[dayman]

This an argument i dont understand. Maybe you can help me get this. My father tore his rotator cuff 2 months ago and is having surgery next week. This is before the obamacare kicks in. How is that any different?

 

The other argument I hear is that you dont get to pick your doctor. Well that doesnt make sense, you can find out if this place has better doctors than that place and choose to go there right? Is this law going to make Doctors any less competent? Are they not going to study in med school?

 

 

Is every person that lucky though? My parents absolutely will not let me starve or not have emergency surgery or anything like that, but many people dont have that luxury. Believe me I'm the lucky one out of my friends to have come from the family I did

 

 

Well first off you have to realize the first paragraph there is me saying "don't demonize the private insurance companies" but I admit there is basically no reason that they provide any benefit it was purely political reality that the right wing (and some of the left) wouldn't' get rid of them.

 

The second part is me talking not about the ACA...but about a public provider system. AKA...Great Britan. Which I came to the conclusion that in the end that would still probably be the better option for the most people...despite both private and public provider systems having their strengths.

 

So when you ask about your dad's shoulder and picking your doctor realize I was talking about public payer and later on public provider...neither of which we have now under the ACA or had before (although we have public payer for basically everyone that is old or poor).

[IDBillzFan]

Is every person that lucky though? My parents absolutely will not let me starve or not have emergency surgery or anything like that, but many people dont have that luxury. Believe me I'm the lucky one out of my friends to have come from the family I did

Good point. But no one gets rejected for care. No one. We didn't need a new law nobody wants so a tiny faction of the US can get something they can already get. Which is really my larger point: when liberals argue (as they always do) that "30M Americans now get coverage," my initial response is, "And the ACA was the only way to do that? You mess with everyone else?"

 

I should also note that, in all fairness, my larger issue with people discussing how children can stay on their parents' plans to 26 is the purposeful suggestion that 26-year-olds are "children." And it is purposeful, because the progressives in this world see you as hapless, immature, co-dependents unable to have independent thoughts. They do the same thing with minorities, but in those cases they just give them free money to keep them quiet.

Edited July 19, 2012 by LABillzFan

[DC Tom]

Good point. But no one gets rejected for care. No one.

 

Absolutely not true. I know people who have, for rather serious injuries.

 

Under Medicaid, of course.

[IDBillzFan]

Absolutely not true. I know people who have, for rather serious injuries.

 

Under Medicaid, of course.

And these people continue to live with these serious injuries?

[dayman]

Absolutely not true. I know people who have, for rather serious injuries.

 

Under Medicaid, of course.

 

 

Shhh...everyone just got free care anyway for the last 50 years there wasn't any problem (and btw it was truly free!)..shhhh...don't spoil the talking points that blast the ACA as the devil...sshhh

Edited July 19, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Captain Hindsight]

Well first off you have to realize the first paragraph there is me saying "don't demonize the private insurance companies" but I admit there is basically no reason that they provide any benefit it was purely political reality that the right wing (and some of the left) wouldn't' get rid of them.

 

The second part is me talking not about the ACA...but about a public provider system. AKA...Great Britan. Which I came to the conclusion that in the end that would still probably be the better option for the most people...despite both private and public provider systems having their strengths.

 

So when you ask about your dad's shoulder and picking your doctor realize I was talking about public payer and later on public provider...neither of which we have now under the ACA or had before (although we have public payer for basically everyone that is old or poor).

Got ya. I'm getting to that age where i need to understand these issues so I apologize if I missed your point

[Captain Hindsight]

Good point. But no one gets rejected for care. No one. We didn't need a new law nobody wants so a tiny faction of the US can get something they can already get. Which is really my larger point: when liberals argue (as they always do) that "30M Americans now get coverage," my initial response is, "And the ACA was the only way to do that? You mess with everyone else?"

 

I should also note that, in all fairness, my larger issue with people discussing how children can stay on their parents' plans to 26 is the purposeful suggestion that 26-year-olds are "children." And it is purposeful, because the progressives in this world see you as hapless, immature, co-dependents unable to have independent thoughts. They do the same thing with minorities, but in those cases they just give them free money to keep them quiet.

Im not so sure about this. I feel like ive read that if you dont have insurance and got shot, you are treated until stable then released. Im not sure that counts as "covered". My feeling on this is its a step in the right direction, but hardly perfect.

 

As to your second point, there will always be moochers when it comes to beating the system. Technically I am eligible for EBT, heat assistance and all that. I applied for it because I am in a position where that could really help me out. (160 a week is nothing when your paying rent too) I was flat out denied. It irks the hell out of me when I see someone pay with food stamps then go get in the escalade and I have to make decisions about how many meals I'm gonna have this week or if I should have dinner tonight or tomorrow. Thats flat bull ****. I'm a believer in social programs because some people really do need help, but it must be reformed big time. I hope Obamacare is the first step in that

[DC Tom]

And these people continue to live with these serious injuries?

 

Yes.

[B-Man]

Well, all I can draw on is my own personal experience.

 

I have worked at three different hospitals here in WNY over the past thirty five years and I have never heard of one of our ER's refusing treatment.

 

 

Now, of course, there has always been some types of treatments refused for in-pts and ER patients, if they were not apprpriate, or readily accessible.

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

Yes.

That's very unfortunate. You'd think serious injuries, whatever they are, would be assisted by someone. Church. Civic organizations. Non profits. What kind of serious injuries are we talking about?

[WorldTraveller]

Everyone loves benefits. If you ask people, "hey, don't you like that the law pays for ________?" The answer will almost always be "yeah, that sounds good"

 

But when you combine that with what "hey, don't you like that the law pays for _______? But it will inhibit job creation from small employers and that it will burden state budgets which will lead to higher state taxes and less jobs for teachers, firefighters, police offers, a possible rationing of care and an increase in the national debt" Then the answer is "well, when you put it that way, no"

 

That's why you always here, "well when you poll the individual portions of the law, it poll tests well"

 

Well No Sh*t! everyone likes to hear the benefits, its the cost of those benefits that put everything back into its real perspective.

Edited July 19, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[3rdnlng]

Well, all I can draw on is my own personal experience.

 

I have worked at three different hospitals here in WNY over the past thirty five years and I have never heard of one of our ER's refusing treatment.

 

 

Now, of course, there has always been some types of treatments refused for in-pts and ER patients, if they were not apprpriate, or readily accessible.

 

.

 

I was turned away from an emergency room in CA because my doctor wasn't affiliated with the hospital. At that time I was new to the area and didn't have a doctor yet but I did have health insurance and a very painful kidney stone.

[Captain Hindsight]

I was turned away from an emergency room in CA because my doctor wasn't affiliated with the hospital. At that time I was new to the area and didn't have a doctor yet but I did have health insurance and a very painful kidney stone.

Freeloader!

[birdog1960]

That's very unfortunate. You'd think serious injuries, whatever they are, would be assisted by someone. Church. Civic organizations. Non profits. What kind of serious injuries are we talking about?

this reminds me of bush being surprised at the existence of bar code scanners in supermarkets....oblivious - let them eat cake. wake up a look across the tracks from time to time.

[WorldTraveller]

I was turned away from an emergency room in CA because my doctor wasn't affiliated with the hospital. At that time I was new to the area and didn't have a doctor yet but I did have health insurance and a very painful kidney stone.

Probably wasn't part of the PPO network

[dayman]

Everyone loves benefits. If you ask people, "hey, don't you like that the law pays for ________?" The answer will almost always be "yeah, that sounds good"

 

But when you combine that with what "hey, don't you like that the law pays for _______? But it will inhibit job creation from small employers and that it will burden state budgets which will lead to higher state taxes and less jobs for teachers, firefighters, police offers, a possible rationing of care and an increase in the national debt" Then the answer is "well, when you put it that way, no"

 

That's why you always here, "well when you poll the individual portions of the law, it poll tests well"

 

Well No Sh*t! everyone likes to hear the benefits, its the cost of those benefits that put everything back into its real perspective.

 

 

Try giving them the hard facts on American healthcare as is compared to other nations (who do a bunch of different things...different from us...different from each other) and poll them on if we should do something. That'll be unanimous.

 

Then we can sit here and debate and ACA structure, a medicare for all structure, or just total social medicine. If you really care about small business and state budgets so much I take it you want to socialize the entire thing? At least a public payer? Of course that would take even more taxes...tsk tsk...so now we're back to ACA? But then again the ACA is still ultmately more expensive than single payer...so we should shift back over there at least...and now wait a minute single payer could lower the cost of care more if we go to socialized medicine! But wait socialized medicine doesn't sound good...let's just stick w/ single payer....bleh the taxes! Back to ACA. You know the ACA has a huge lobby against it and seem complicated...let's just do nothing?

 

At some point we have to pick one. We picked the conservative approach. This is Romney's own damned approach. As a nation (and by nation I mean the GOP), we should all stop forcing him to run against it and repeal it and just move forward on implementing it well and revising where necessary.

Edited July 19, 2012 by TheNewBills

[birdog1960]

I was turned away from an emergency room in CA because my doctor wasn't affiliated with the hospital. At that time I was new to the area and didn't have a doctor yet but I did have health insurance and a very painful kidney stone.

then they broke the law under EMTALA. er's can not refuse emergency care. they can refuse your insurance.